ENFRANCHISEMENT OF CHURCH PROPERTY.

" VESTED interests " are always respected in this country—when the proprietors are powerful in the Legislature. The Church lessees, therefore, who apprehended injury from the proposed alteration in the management of Ecclesiastical lands and mines, raised an opposition to it in the House of Commons, from which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gladly took shelter in a Com- mittee. The strength of that opposition can only be broken by proof that the alarm was ill-founded, and that the interests of the lessees and the public clash not, but coincide. And we think it is difficult to read the evidence given before the Committee on Church Leases without coming to the conclusion, that in the great majority of cases, it would be beneficial to the lessees, to secure to the Church its present income, and pay a large addi- tional sum to the public, in return for an Act of Parliament which should convert their leaseholds into freeholds. The foun- dation of such an arrangement is the fact, sufficiently established, and indeed scarcely questioned by any party, that in consequence of the uncertainty of the tenure, Church property is not nearly so productive as it might be made were the fee in its present holders under leases from Ecclesiastical bodies.

But it is alleged, that the property, though nominally leasehold, is equal in value to freehold, from the certainty and regularity with which leases are renewed. There is some evidence in the Committee's Report which might seem to countenance this asser- tion,but the balance of proof is on the other side. Yr. CHRISTOPHER HODGSON, a witness evidently unwilling to disturb the existing order of things by which he largely profits, was asked if "the renewal of Church leases" was con- sidered " certain or doubtful :" and lie replied, " Upon payment of the usual fines they are certain." But he had previously told the Committee, that Bishop BLOMF1ELD'S " rates of renewal " are higher than those of his predecessor in the see of London : and when pushed by Lord Emma he repeated, that there had been " an increase in several fines in the case of the present Bishop of London ;" adding, in reply to other questions, that there was nothing to prevent the successor of the present Bishop asking a further advance. Thus it is manifest, that in the diocese of London there is no security that the rates of renewal will be regular ; in other words, the accident of a Bishop's death or translation may materially reduce the value of property pronounced equal to freehold. A transaction occurred in the neighbourhood of London, which proves bow completely lessees are at the mercy of their clerical landlords. Mr. WiLi.iAJI HESELTINE, a stockbroker, purchased the lease of a house adjoining his own in South Lambeth. The lease was from the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury, for twenty- cne years, renewable every' seven years, on payment of a fine equal to a year-and -a-half's value. The fiat fine he paid was 801.; the rent received at first being 73/. per annum, the purchase-money 7401. Of course Mr. IIESLLTINE, on these terms, had a good bargain. The interest of his purchase-money was, at 5 per cent., 371. ; and 80/. spread over seven years, would be 111. Sc. Sd.; together, 48/. 8s. Sd. But he was afterwards cutnpellcd to reduce the rent to .501. a year; and on these tents he under-let it. In June 1837, however, in- stead of a renewal fine of £Oi., he was suddenly called upon to ray to les,: than 224/. 18s., and expenses ; which raised the detaind t.) 't/. Other tenants in the same neighbourhood com- pluioed siniflar exeeties. But Mr. HESELT1NE being under

contract to his sob-tenant, was obliged to renew his lease on the

twins asked. As nurnewous complaints were made, Dr. SPRY, Rector of Mary1,bore, and a member of the Dean and Chapter, announced his readiness to attend to all applications ; and Mr.

TILSELTINE accordingly went to him with a letter containing the toms on which he originally bought the lease—namely, thnt i e might expect to have it icilewed en payment of a year-and-e- fine ; whereas ha bad ken eliarged a much larger sun'. ollined to plow his case hefore Dr. SPRY: but the Webr S:jt1—" If you lval fifty certificates from surveyors in London ; if y, a had filly allidavits front tenants, we should not attend to you." Aftei winds, Dr. SPRY 1dd Mr. 11EsELTINE, that ilk Dean and Chapter of Canterbury never allowed "any sort of interference " with their " saltier." Now it happened, that their "valuer'" had Let even been over the property, the worth of which he so badly guessed at. But the tenant obtained no redress.

The difle:rent practices of the Bishops Of HEREFORD must have caused much variation in value and uncertainty in tenure of the Church leasehold property in that diocese. Mr. Tuoazts Ev ANS, of Hereford, Secretary and Steward to the Bishop, gate the following evidence- " We have had three Bishops within a short spare of time ; each haring :,;,1 their mode of fining. When I went to lieraerel in the year 18:28, and .-eat into partnership with my uncle Mr. Underwcod, then the Secretary to Bishop Uuntinglord, Biahop lluutiugford always set the line himself; and with regard to leases for lives, his practice was to take two years' improved value, deducting the reserved rent only. With regard to leases for three lives, in case of one life dropping, Bishop Huatingford's mode was always to take two years' improved value, deducting the reserved rent, whether the two existing lives were old or young. He did not consult an actuary upon the lives .• his mode was invariably in every case to take two years, without reference at all to the ages of the existing parties."

But Bishop GREY went on a different plan. He made a rule, that "When a lease for three lives was renewable by the death of one, the fine should be greater or less according to the ages existing, whether older or younger. • • * With regard to the lessees now wishing to renew, the present Bishop of Hereford has laid down this rule—, Whether they choose to renew with me or not, will depend upon themselves, for they will not be allowed by me to have it antler its fair value.'" Lord SONDES held Church property in Kent under the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's. In 1806, the fine for putting in a fresh life was 6001.; but in 1833, 1,2691. was demanded, and refused. Lord SONDES "ran his lease" against his landlords. In 1836, another life dropped ; leaving only one in existence. Two fresh lives were then put in for 1,200/., being just half the sum de- manded.

Mr. JOHN NEAME, the witness who stated the circumstances of Lord SONDES arrangement, mentioned that the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury pretended to calculate the fines of another property in Kent regularly at a year-and-a-half's value; but he said that was " merely a profession" upon their part, since they have " kept raising the fine" since 1806.

Mr. ELSLEY, of' Thirsk, is trustee for a large coal-mine in Dur- ham, held on a lease for twenty-one years, renewable every seven years. In 1834, lie had the colliery valued ; and found that the fine, according to the usual practice of taking it at one year and three-quarters' purchase, would amount to 1,386/.; but upon ap- plication for renewal, he was called upon to pay 2,587/., by Dr. VAN MILDERT, the then Bishop: and when lie asked upon what terms the fine was calculated, the reply of the Bishop's Secretary was, that no information would be given ; and that " if he did not like to pay that stun, he might let it alone, and they would grant a lease to somebody else."

Mr. HonessoN stated, that, within his experience, as a ge- neral rule " Bishops have looked inure closely into the value of their property, and have taken larger fines than they used to do." These facts, selected from a mass of similar ones reported by the Committee, prove that the tenure of a Church lessee is at the best uncertain ; that it may at any time be cut off at the caprice of the landlord; and that it is very usual to vary the terms of it, to the disadvantage of the holder. The superiority, therefore, of a freehold property to that held on lease from an Ecclesiastical body, is manifest ; and numerous witnesses, portions of whose evi- dence were cited last week, speak to the fact, that tenants generally

would pay a handsome sum for the enfranchisement of their lease- holds. The modes operandi is clearly described by Mr. PH L L- POTTS, who had the management of the property of the Dean and. Chapter of Gloucester from 1790 to 1822. He stated, that it was the practice of' that body (and we have seen that it is a common practice) to take a fine of a-year-and-altall's rent every seven years- " Suppose an estate to be of the value of 1001. a year, the property would produce a tine every seven years of 1501.: that being divided be seven, would give an annual income of 21/. 8s. fid. Supposing, therefore, that annual in. come to be taken, they would derive from a property of 1001. a year, held for twenty-one years, an income of 211. 8s. tel. The reversion of property of that description, then (in 1800). sold for twelve years' purchase. I apprehend, from the difference of times, at least thirteen or fourteen years' purchase would now be obtained for such property ; and that the reversion, after a twenty-one years' lease, would sell for fourteen years' purchase; but, taking it only at thirteen, it would produce 1,300/. This 1,3001., laid out in land, or invested in the per. chase of a rent-charge, or a perpetual annuity producing :3,1, per cent. would give an income of 451. 10s. ; consequently the benefit to be derived from the sale, tinder such circumstances, would be the difference between 211. 8s. 5ti. and 451. tos."

On this calculation, it is manifest that Church properly might be made to produce more than twice the income it yields at present.

But although the operation would be beneficial to the State, and there would probably be no difficulty in procuring purchasers of property on the terms mentioned, it remains to be seen whether the Church lessees would consent to pay at the rate supposed for the enfranchisement of their leaseholds. Mr. Pit t LLPOTTS thinks it would be a gainful arrangement fur them generally. He dwells upon the advantage of having " a certainty in the property," of being enabled to subdivide it, or deal with in any way by mort- gage and sale, but especially on the profitable investment of money in land capable of immense improvement by a judicious out- lay. Now the tenant has to pay, in the shape of a flue, a portien of the premeds of his improvetnents, at stated periods, to the Church; whereas, were the property his own, the capital expended in im- provements would, Mr. PHILLPOTTS calculates, yield him a re- turn of at least S per cent. Referring to his experience in 1800, the witness said- " I am perfectly satisfied, that there is not a lessee who, upon having fair terms uth:red him for his purchase, would nut avail himself of it most readily ; and 1 consider, that in the sales made under the Land-tax Redemption Act, there was a practical proof of that. I could have sold ten times the amount that was sold under the terms which I mentioned. • * • I believe the general rate cf money (in 18001 was from 8 to 10 per cent., if you wanted to 1)• crow it. You cculd not get money at the common interest, or any thing like it."

With Mr. PHILLPOTTS it is all plain sailing ; but Mr. EMERY, of Banwehl, in Sornersetshire, connected with Church p raperty, points attention to difficulties, and at the same time suggests a remedy-

" If the plan [proposed by Mr. SPRING Rica] were made compulsory within twelve months, like the Tithe system, it would be the ruin of hundreds, and perhaps thousands of families, particularly small leaseholders, whose property is under mortgage, or under settlement, or deposited by way of security without mortgage ; for it is extraordinary to see the extent to which securities hare been riven on Church property."

When the scheme was first proposed in Parliament, we felt and noticed the difficulty pointed out by Mr. Ezdaest. So many family arrangements would be set aside, so many secrets disclosed, and so much inconvenience occasioned to tenants who bad encumbered their leaseholds in any way, by the unexpected demand to enfran- chise the property, or abandon all hope of retaining it at the close of their terms, that we felt satisfied an opposition to the Chan- cellor of the Exchequer's measure would be raised, too formidable for any Government to resist. The mortgagee would go to his debtor, and ascertain whether he could enfranchise the property : if not, notice would be given to pay up the money borrowed, be- cause the security would every day be diminished. But it would obviate much of this difficulty if time were given to make fresh arrangements. Mr. EMERY proposes a voluntary commutation, under an Act of Parliament, within a limited time- " I think, if fourteen years were given, the whole objection would be met. ' • • The poorer lessees would be willing and able to enfranchise their pro- perty in due course of time. • * • It would enable all difficulties to be met in regard to mortgages and settlements."

This appears to be a rational suggestion. It is admitted that the freehold would be more valuable than the leasehold; and if the operation were as advantageous to the leaseholder as has been represented—and Mr. SPRING RICE proposed to make it more ad- vantageous to the lessees than other persons desirous of purchas- ing—the increased value would be more than sufficient to enable the leaseholder to borrow the sum necessary for the act of en- franchisement.

If the witnesses are to be relied upon, it has been proved that the enfranchisement of Church property may be so managed as to produce a very large sum to the public without injury to any party. The application of the money so acquired, to the support of the "fabrics of the church,' in lieu of Church-rates, would meet with more powerful opposition than a simple measure for effecting the conversion of the leasehold property of the Church into freehold, leaving the appropriation of the sums raised by the operation for future discussion. Supposing it were impossible to carry a bill through Parliament for paying Church-rates out of the fund indicated', there is no reason why the public should not have profit from it in another way. According to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's calculation, the sum wanted for the ex- tinction of Church-rates was 250,000/. per annum. On the plan of a r..adual enfranehisement, the income from the same source, smaller at first, would annually increase, till it reached a much

larger amount : for Mr. RICE'S plan was to sell a reversion to raise money for an immediate purpose, at a large sacrifice. Might

it not be converted into an Education fund ? No doubt there

would be violent opposition to this; but less probably than to the transfer of a quarter of a million per annum from the Church to the people in lieu of the rates. But it were better that the now

latent fund were even devoted to the erection and endowment of new churches, than that it should be utterly wasted, and the country derive no advantage from it in any shape. The increased production from improved cultivation of the Church-lands, is, of itself, a benefit not to be neglected.